ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Establishing Best Practices for Clinical GWAS: Tackling Imputation and Data Quality Challenges.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A population-specific genomic reference panel for Taiwan: NHRI-RP-1.Journal of biomedical science · 2026Article
- Integrating multi-omics data for next-generation cancer research and precision medicine.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Review
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) play a central role in precision medicine, powering a range of clinical applications from pharmacogenomics to disease risk prediction. A critical component of GWASs is genotype imputation, a computational method used to infer untyped genetic variants. While imputation increases variant coverage by estimating genotypes at untyped loci, this expanded coverage can enhance the ability to detect genetic associations in some cases. However, imputation also introduces biases, particularly for rare variants and underrepresented populations, which may compromise clinical accuracy. This review examines the challenges and clinical implications of genotype imputation errors, including their impact on therapeutic decisions and predictive models, like polygenic risk scores (PRSs). In particular, the sources of imputation errors have been deeply explored, emphasizing the disparities in performance across ancestral populations and downstream effects on healthcare equity and addressing ethical considerations surrounding the access to equitable genomic resources. Based on the above, we propose evidence-based best practices for clinical GWAS implementation, including the direct genotyping of clinically actionable variants, the cross-population validation of imputation models, the transparent reporting of imputation quality metrics, and the use of ancestry-matched reference panels. As genomic data becomes increasingly adopted in healthcare systems worldwide, ensuring the accuracy and inclusivity of GWAS-derived insights is paramount. Here, we suggest a framework for the responsible clinical integration of imputed genetic data, paving the way for more reliable and equitable personalized medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.